Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Get and set in typed array vs simple array
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
typedArray vs array
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var size = 1024; var typedArray = new Int32Array(size); var array = []; for(let i = 0; i < size; i++) { typedArray[i] = Math.random(); array[i] = Math.random(); }
Tests:
typedArray
const i = Math.round(Math.random() * size); typedArray[i] = typedArray[i] * 2;
array
const i = Math.round(Math.random() * size); array[i] = array[i] * 2;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
typedArray
array
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
24 days ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/148.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 148 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
typedArray
50083928.0 Ops/sec
array
46961968.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Purpose:** The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches when accessing elements in an array or typed array: 1. **Simple Array**: Using a regular JavaScript array (`[]`). 2. **Typed Array**: Using a typed array, specifically `Int32Array`, which is a binary data type that provides better performance and memory efficiency. **Options Compared:** The benchmark compares the execution time of two test cases: 1. **typedArray**: Accessing elements in a typed array using integer indexing (`typedArray[i]`). 2. **array**: Accessing elements in a simple array using integer indexing (`array[i]`). **Pros and Cons:** * **Typed Array (typedArray)**: + Pros: - Provides better performance due to its binary data type, which reduces the number of memory allocations and copies. - Can be more efficient for large datasets. + Cons: - Requires a specific library or module to create (e.g., `Int32Array` in this case). - May not work with all types of data or operations. * **Simple Array (array)**: + Pros: - Easy to use and understand, as it's a standard JavaScript data type. - Works with most types of data and operations. + Cons: - Can be slower than typed arrays due to the overhead of dynamic typing and memory allocation. **Library:** In this benchmark, the `Int32Array` library is used to create a typed array. This library provides an efficient way to work with binary data in JavaScript. **Special JS Feature/Syntax:** None mentioned explicitly in the provided code, but it's worth noting that the use of typed arrays and integer indexing (`typedArray[i]`) requires some basic understanding of JavaScript arrays and their underlying mechanics. **Other Alternatives:** * Other typed array types (e.g., `Float32Array`, `Uint8Array`, etc.) could be used in similar benchmarks to compare their performance. * Using native WebAssembly or NativeModules for optimized arrays and memory access. * Implementing custom array data structures or algorithms for optimal performance. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, requirements, and constraints. This benchmark provides a basic comparison between typed arrays and simple arrays, but there are many other factors to consider when optimizing JavaScript performance.
Related benchmarks:
Direct Array vs Typed Array vs Array
array vs int32array without conversion
Item getting in typed array vs simple array
Direct Array vs Typed Array vs Array read performances
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?